Person A:
------------
'Tamil nadu would witness a bloodbath even if the slightest harm befell LTTE leader V. Prabhakaran'.
-LTTE is a banned organization by government of india.
-Threatening with bloodbath is enticing the public for unlawful activity.
'It is a long time since people of tamil nadu had forgotten about Sripermbadur (assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi)'
-The statement directly means justifying the assassination.
'India will not remain one country, if Mahinda rajpaksha did not stop the war against LTTE and india did not argue him to stop the war.'
-The statesman is questioning the sovereignty and integrity of nation, and promoting separatism.
Person B:
-----------
'If anyone raises a hand against hindus, i swear on the Gita, that i will cut that hand off.'
-This promotes violence and disrespect towards law.
Note : According to popular media belief, this is a communal statement. But i see it as a pro hindu statement, not communal statement.
Putting things in perspective :
-----------------------------------
When i see these two cases, person B's statements seem much more milder to me. The other thing to be noted down is :
-Person A is not apologetic of his remarks and is proud of his association with LTTE.
-Person B says, certain parts of his speech are doctored, he has not said anything communal.
Result :
---------
Person B is charged against National Security Act, suffering in jail and Person A is enjoying the freedom of speech !! Why ?
India should be careful when they advice Pakistan to try all the leaders of banned organizations in court and punish them. After all, when we have a person contesting parliamentary elections who openly supports a banned organization ; do we have a right to expect others to follow our advice? We need to have a honest look within ourselves and should practice what we preach.
